Let’s recap. The comment you replied to said that it would be false to say “ICE executes a US citizen by shooting him in the back of the head” because ICE didn’t kill him, and he wasn’t shot in the back of the head.
You replied (sarcastically) with “That’s OK then,” implying that you thought it was necessary to tell someone who stated correctly that ICE didn’t kill a man that what ICE did wasn’t OK. To be clear, that person didn’t say, “this is fine because the guy is still alive”, they were just correcting someone who falsely said ICE killed someone.
So why do you think literally anyone here thinks it is OK that someone got shot? Nobody has said that it’s OK. Just to spell it out:
you have read someone making a correct point that ICE didn’t kill someone as “ICE shot someone, but it’s OK.”
To me, that says one thing: you think that it is not important to speak the truth about ICE if that truth is that they didn’t behave in the worst possible way. Any truth that doesn’t align with the narrative of “ICE bad” is not important truth to you, right? The only statements that should be written are those which criticise ICE.
Does that sound about right? If so, then I’ll just say again: you need to be better than that. If not, then what possible reason do you have for asking “do you think it’s OK he got shot” when no-one said that it is OK?
My point, all along, is that ICE shouldn’t be behaving how they are, at all, it’s fucked.
And you felt the need to make that point, repeatedly, when no-one disagreed with it. And you won’t even begin to talk about why.
Yes, I think we absolutely need to make a decision between true things and false things. I don’t give a shit what country you associate that habit with because it’s so clearly important and positive. You’ll have to actually respond to me if you want to convince me that it is anything other than vital in today’s “post-truth” landscape.
ICE executes a US citizen with a shot in the back of the head in front of children.
Here, I fixed the headline for you.
they successfully executed the guy in franklin park illinois for the crime of driving away.
Per the article:
He is still alive
ICE attempts to murder a US citizen with a shot in the back of the head in front of children.
Nailed it?
Okay this is good.
Let’s iterate this until it’s perfect. I think attempted unnecessarily waters it down.
How about
ICE shoots a US citizen in the back of the head in front of children.
That’s ok then.
Does the truth only matter to you if it’s aligned in all respects with the narrative?
Be better.
Do you think it’s ok he got shot? Thats the problem, that ICE thought shooting someone, anyone, was ok. It’s not.
Let’s recap. The comment you replied to said that it would be false to say “ICE executes a US citizen by shooting him in the back of the head” because ICE didn’t kill him, and he wasn’t shot in the back of the head.
You replied (sarcastically) with “That’s OK then,” implying that you thought it was necessary to tell someone who stated correctly that ICE didn’t kill a man that what ICE did wasn’t OK. To be clear, that person didn’t say, “this is fine because the guy is still alive”, they were just correcting someone who falsely said ICE killed someone.
So why do you think literally anyone here thinks it is OK that someone got shot? Nobody has said that it’s OK. Just to spell it out:
you have read someone making a correct point that ICE didn’t kill someone as “ICE shot someone, but it’s OK.”
To me, that says one thing: you think that it is not important to speak the truth about ICE if that truth is that they didn’t behave in the worst possible way. Any truth that doesn’t align with the narrative of “ICE bad” is not important truth to you, right? The only statements that should be written are those which criticise ICE.
Does that sound about right? If so, then I’ll just say again: you need to be better than that. If not, then what possible reason do you have for asking “do you think it’s OK he got shot” when no-one said that it is OK?
I’m hugely disappointed that you feel the need to make the distinction, it’s incredibly USAian.
My point, all along, is that ICE shouldn’t be behaving how they are, at all, it’s fucked.
And you felt the need to make that point, repeatedly, when no-one disagreed with it. And you won’t even begin to talk about why.
Yes, I think we absolutely need to make a decision between true things and false things. I don’t give a shit what country you associate that habit with because it’s so clearly important and positive. You’ll have to actually respond to me if you want to convince me that it is anything other than vital in today’s “post-truth” landscape.
But that was not the point. The point was did someone get executed or shot in the back? No-one is saying either story is ok but only one is true.
I’m disappointed that you feel the need to make the distinction.
The other one is a lie. I am disappointed in you at this point.
We shouldn’t even be getting as far as the lie.
It matters that they shot someone, at all.
Literally no one said anything to that effect. Learn to read.
He’s alive
Totally, this headline is not nearly sensationalist and misleading enough for my taste.
I’m going to go back to r/politics if this doesn’t change!